KATHMANDU: Nepal’s main opposition party, CPN (Maoist Centre), is facing intense criticism after reaching a controversial agreement with the ruling coalition over the recent high-profile ‘visit visa scandal,’ in which top officials have been accused of involvement. The party, however, defended its move during a parliamentary session on Sunday.
Speaking during discussions on the appropriation bill for the upcoming fiscal year, Maoist deputy general secretary and former finance minister Barshaman Pun referred to ‘the people’ four times in an apparent attempt to justify the two-point agreement reached with the Nepali Congress and the ruling CPN-UML.
The Maoists had previously been obstructing parliamentary proceedings since June 3, demanding the resignation of Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak and a parliamentary investigation into the visa scam. But on June 13, the party unexpectedly signed an agreement with the ruling coalition that made no mention of either demand.
The first point of the agreement stated: “The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) is already investigating matters related to visit visas and immigration. The government of Nepal will extend necessary cooperation to the commission as requested.”
The second point mentioned the government’s commitment to policy, legal, and structural reforms in immigration and visit visa matters, with no reference to forming a parliamentary probe or demanding any resignation.
The deal sparked backlash, with critics accusing the Maoist party of caving in to protect its own leaders allegedly involved in other scandals.
Pun, however, rejected those claims in parliament. “Some have said the Maoists gave in because of pending cases involving our former Speaker Agni Sapkota. But this is not true,” he said. “This was not a trade-off, nor are we afraid. The cases related to Agni Sapkota are under judicial consideration, with some verdicts already issued and full texts awaited. These are unrelated to the visit visa case. We feel no pressure or need for compromise.”
Despite his defense, the absence of strong accountability measures in the agreement continues to raise questions about the Maoist Centre’s commitment to addressing corruption.
Comment